From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alexey Vasiliev <leopard_ne(at)inbox(dot)ru> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch: add recovery_timeout option to control timeout of restore_command nonzero status code |
Date: | 2014-11-04 13:41:56 |
Message-ID: | 20141104134156.GP28295@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2014-11-03 14:04:00 +0300, Alexey Vasiliev wrote:
> * What the patch does in a short paragraph: This patch should add option recovery_timeout, which help to control timeout of restore_command nonzero status code. Right now default value is 5 seconds. This is useful, if I using for restore of wal logs some external storage (like AWS S3) and no matter what the slave database will lag behind the master. The problem, what for each request to AWS S3 need to pay, what is why for N nodes, which try to get next wal log each 5 seconds will be bigger price, than for example each 30 seconds. Before I do this in this way: " if ! (/usr/local/bin/envdir /etc/wal-e.d/env /usr/local/bin/wal-e wal-fetch "%f" "%p"); then sleep 60; fi ". But in this case restart/stop database slower.
Without saying that the feature is unneccessary, wouldn't this better be
solved by using streaming rep most of the time?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ktm@rice.edu | 2014-11-04 14:15:46 | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-04 13:40:36 | Re: What exactly is our CRC algorithm? |